I am not disputing whether or not I have parental rights or who's fault it this is. I know I have no legal parental rights. But I will always support my wife and her decisions to protect her child. Besides, I'm the one who changes the dirty diapers and reads the bedtime stories and gets up at night for the bad dreams and the list goes on and on. He knows I AM his daddy. That may not be important to the courts but its good enough for me to justify moving. Why should some deadbeat dad be allowed anything based solely on the fact that they share the same blood. I can see that your view is quite similar to that of the courts', "They share the same blood and thats all that matters. The safety and welfare of the child is less important." While I can appreciate your point of view, I disagree. The courts are more concerned about violating the constitutional and parental rights of an illegal alien who has no right to be here in the first place instead on concentrating on the safety and welfare of this child. Also, if you are not allowed by law to be in this country then how can you possibly be a parent to anyone in this country. It just doesn't make sense. Any loser can make a baby. It takes a real man to be a father. I will not allow this guy to USE this innocent child as his anchor baby. This guy truly doesn't care much for the child, but his illegal alien parents (child's grandparents) won't let him give up any parental rights because they want to see their grandson. He was almost ready to sign over his rights a year ago! Here is another question in addition to the previous ones: Can a judge tell me I cannot move to take a job offer in another state? As you implicated, this is between the mother and father so I don't see how I could be held to any restrictions. And obviously my wife and family would come with me. Thats just common sense. Furthermore, we would come up with a laundry list of reasons to move other than "to get away from the father." We aren't stupid.
Also, you said, "sounds like you want to move and want to hide the child away from dad." You're exactly right. My wife and I both want to protect our child from abduction and loose moral behavior. I love this boy as much as my biological son (his little brother). And while the courts think it is more important for a father to be with his son based on nothing more than DNA, I believe it is more important to protect the child and keep him safe from being abducted. The bottom line here is he is better off with us and without this terrible person to influence him or kidnap him. I welcome your opinion and perspective. It is helpful to look at things from a different point of view. If we were to try and work something out with the father we would just add up his monthly hours of visitation (22 hrs/month) and come back to CA to visit every 6-12 months and give him 2-3 weeks during the day, no overnights, but he would still be getting 264 hrs/year. Any thoughts? Any answers to my first posted questions?